SiSU should of thought about this before cutting their own throat by stripping the squad and getting us relegated !! :facepalm::facepalm: we would not of lost millions if we stayed up
Excuse me, your Oldskyblueness!
But how many times have others "gone under", without taking A 2 div drop? Portsmouth?
I think CCFC are relatively angels in this respect!
imp:
fair comment grego geeexcept that Pompey are in administration and have not been wound up. Any club that has been wound up has either gone out of existence or dropped leagues. I was taking as recent reference what has happened to Rangers in Scotland, they dropped 2 divisions by forming Rangers New Co Ltd and the old Rangers was actually wound up
"Going under" in Administration is a totally different thing to being wound up
look at it this way
say the losses budgetted for by CCFC were £2m on sales of £6m (player budget 3.9m)...... personally I think it is more at over 3m loss
saving £800k on rent - thats what we are told
Rates saving ........... estimate £150k we are told
additional profit from ACL £100k - again we were told this by ACL
Additional turnover from F&B's £1m - doesnt actually add to profit because it is cross invoiced but allows bigger player budget of £650K, TF says CCFC will spend that allowance.
Losses .................................... (2,000,000)
Rent saving............................... 800,000
Rates saving ............................ 150,000
ACL profit allowance................ 100,000
additional spend on players budget(650,000)
Loss ......................................... (1,600,000)
loss is funded by SISU or not paying other creditors (ie greater and greater debt) or by selling players (who have we got that would fund those losses by being sold each year?)
It simply does not work ............... whatever ACL compromise, it does not solve or come close to solving CCFC's financial mess.............. so the real problem is where?
It's a nice little trick you did thereno trick
First of all - if sales are £6m FFP won't allow for 3.9m plus 0.65m in player wages. current turnover is £6m if the deal went ahead it would be £7m and FFP budget £4.55m TF has repeatedly said he would spend every penny on the pitch (his words not mine)
Second - balancing the books is important so I suspect sisu won't accept continuous losses. so given they have saved the rent got the other concessions how do they do that ? only thing left would appear to be the wages so instead of spending the revised FFP budget of £4.55m they spend £1.6m less (2.95m or in other terms less than we spend now)
Third - You have yourself many times said ACL may be able to improve their operation, increase revenue and profitability. yes i have and how do you think they were able to drop £800k if they were not doing this ? but how does that affect CCFC's figures?
Add to that the possibility to cut some overheads if both stadium and club was run by same unit who said that was happening or even likely .
I think for the most part the talk of needing increased revenues because of ffp is sisu trying to get fans on side and not something they belive particually. It's not like Sisu are wanting to spend money and ffp is stopping them, there is no evidence that ffp is hindering us imo, the fact we are almost never paying for players shows that if we were allowed to spend more on wages we still wouldn't want to. also isn't buying out of contract players likely to lead to higher wage bills compared to actually purchaseing the player?
I do not see the point in pouring more money after bad ............. would take what i could and go. BUT the world of hedge funds is not always the same logic as you and I there may be some angle they have that we do not yet realise.
Apart from not buying what/how they did in the first place there have been a number of cut off points. One where they wouldnt agree the funding so accounts not signed off debt was much less then and we were a Championship club. When the strategy of distressing ACL failed is another cut off point.
Would have done a lot of things differently
SISU are never going to get their money back.............. £45m and rising apparently........... they have no affinity for the club or emotional investment in it......... why keep wasting money.......... i just do not get it. They will get a pittance back but I do not see how they can get much back which ever way you look at it.
It is another reason why i do not see the new ground strategy working ........ to get to that new ground they will have to fund 3 years losses not just the construction and their debt just gets bigger and bigger.
Personally I would have done things differently but if it didnt work drawn a line under it much sooner.
I do not see the point in pouring more money after bad ............. would take what i could and go. BUT the world of hedge funds is not always the same logic as you and I there may be some angle they have that we do not yet realise.
Apart from not buying what/how they did in the first place there have been a number of cut off points. One where they wouldnt agree the funding so accounts not signed off debt was much less then and we were a Championship club. When the strategy of distressing ACL failed is another cut off point.
Would have done a lot of things differently
SISU are never going to get their money back.............. £45m and rising apparently........... they have no affinity for the club or emotional investment in it......... why keep wasting money.......... i just do not get it. They will get a pittance back but I do not see how they can get much back which ever way you look at it.
It is another reason why i do not see the new ground strategy working ........ to get to that new ground they will have to fund 3 years losses not just the construction and their debt just gets bigger and bigger.
Personally I would have done things differently but if it didnt work drawn a line under it much sooner.
SISU are never going to get their money back.............. £45m and rising apparently........... they have no affinity for the club or emotional investment in it......... why keep wasting money.......... i just do not get it. They will get a pittance back but I do not see how they can get much back which ever way you look at it.
It is another reason why i do not see the new ground strategy working ........ to get to that new ground they will have to fund 3 years losses not just the construction and their debt just gets bigger and bigger.
.
SiSU should of thought about this before cutting their own throat by stripping the squad and getting us relegated !! :facepalm::facepalm: we would not of lost millions if we stayed up
Absolutely. Every time I hear this line tripped by someone supporting their stance; I ask them how - with current FFP rules in place and existing incomes streams - we offered McGoldrick more money plan any other player in this division only last month.
I haven't received an answer yet.....
Originally Posted by GrendelThat's an irrelevant statement. Sisu purchased shares to buy the club. As 100% of shareholders agreed this I would say that is pure democracy - wouldn't you agree?
Load of bollox Grendel.
I know quite a few Shareholders who "All but had their shares stolen" So is 100% another one of your "Estimated facts"?:facepalm:
Absolutely. Every time I hear this line tripped by someone supporting their stance; I ask them how - with current FFP rules in place and existing incomes streams - we offered McGoldrick more money plan any other player in this division only last month.
I haven't received an answer yet.....
HOWEVER, is it conceivable that SISU are struggling with their own ineptitude and simply will not countenance any failure for reasons of HUBRIS.
I have seen this before in business particularly where reputations are at stake.....people refusing to lose a penny and go on to lose a fortune.
Just wondering?? Wouldn't be the first time.
I know that you keep saying this but where do you get the £10,000 from? Is it all from us or would we just be contributing a portion and Forest paying the rest?
Because with DMG onboard he most likely would not be in this division next year, we would have a) been promoted or b) sold him for a couple of hundred thou as leading goal scorer in Lg1Absolutely. Every time I hear this line tripped by someone supporting their stance; I ask them how - with current FFP rules in place and existing incomes streams - we offered McGoldrick more money plan any other player in this division only last month.
I haven't received an answer yet.....
The potential of income streams are more at the Ricoh which gives the potential of better investment in the team, but it is no good unless other things are addressed
And there in lies the crux "potential" of income streams as opposed to "assured" revenue streams on owning our own ground. As for breaking the lease these are done every day of the year and very rarely on an agreed basis otherwise why break it in the first place! Yes ACL would have a legal recourse but the same can be said of the rent arrears and SISU are still not paying up.
You could be right, I have seen it before also, but I wouldnt know in this case
Its obvious to football fans mighty mungo jerry,
Goalscorers are worth their weight in gold!
The overall wage budget is constrained by FFP and we have to get used to that....
But different teams will spend it differently - one team might spend equally over all players, another might spend 90% (eg) on one player.
Who knows who will prevail?
But its all part of the rich tapestry of FFP!
imp:
Urhm. No. It was us looking to sign him on a permanent basis at the time he signed for Ipswich. A long term contract running for a few seasons - I presume - and therefore running into a term when FFP gets even more punitive.
He's out of contract with Forest in the summer, so I don't think they'd be iinclined to help us out moving forward; do you?
Yet on this basis, we can sign a player - or at least try to do so - on a salary level higher than anyone esle in the division but unless things change with regards revenue, we 'can't compete'?
With regards the £10K sum; widely discussed on here, and elsewhere, and at a time when you seemed to participate without quarrel:
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/26385-With-and-Without-DMC/page6
Because with DMG onboard he most likely would not be in this division next year, we would have a) been promoted or b) sold him for a couple of hundred thou as leading goal scorer in Lg1
Goalscorers are worth their weight in gold!
So your "evidence" is a post from Sky Blue Taylor?
Those assured incomes come with assured assured costs too
But ACL have an interest in keeping them there at the moment .......... if the club just upped and left it wouldnt be the same and ACL I reckon wouldnt hesitate in issueing winding up order based on the legal judgements they already have just out of interest when do we stop down sizing ? ........ at the moment I can see us heading non league in our aspirations
I can see that. But we already have some of the higher earners in the league dear chap; Wood, McSheffrey and Bell being prime examples. Yet we can still court McGoldrick? All within the auspices of FFP, both now and moving forward? Yet things have to change for us to compete to get the better players at this level?
You have to admit; it's kinda hard to tie these loose ends into a convincing narrative, eh?
We stop down sizing when the facilities and team fit in line with the amount of revenue we project the club can gain. This is not about counting how many beans we have in the cupboard today or even looking at what the club does next year or even five years from now.
Its looking 20/25 years ahead and saying this puts the club back where we need it to be owning its ground, engaging with its fans and being ran on a sustainable footing. If moving to a new ground means 25 years from now we had a sound business which was secure for the next 100 years then its a vision that has to be explored. Of course the best vision is that the club 25 years from now is playing at the Ricoh to full houses and reaping the rewards that those full houses would bring in.
wouldnt disagree with any of that. Do you think we have the owners to do that or will it require new (or even several) owners? For me the current owners do somethings right, and in my opinion other things wrongly, they are not the ones to take us forward
With regards the £10K sum; widely discussed on here, and elsewhere, and at a time when you seemed to participate without quarrel:
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/26385-With-and-Without-DMC/page6
No they are not. They shown key strategic errors. However, without a competitive rent and agreement on all revenues the ground generates who would want us? Other than arguably Walsall do you think that we have one of the worst rental agreements in the Football League? I do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?